


Redbeard is "The Other One"

by wellthengameover



Series: Sherlock Meta [5]
Category: Sherlock (TV)
Genre: Analysis, Character Analysis, Childhood, Episode: s02e02 The Hounds of Baskerville, Episode: s03e01 The Empty Hearse, Episode: s03e03 His Last Vow, Family, Holmes Family, Meta, Other, Sherlock Meta, Symbolism
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2015-11-16
Updated: 2015-11-16
Packaged: 2018-05-01 23:04:36
Rating: Not Rated
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Chapters: 1
Words: 3,585
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/5224382
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/wellthengameover/pseuds/wellthengameover
Summary: <blockquote class="userstuff">
              <p>Here’s my theory: Redbeard and “The Other One” are the same person (a person).</p><p>Mofftisson love misdirecting us. We actually know pretty much nothing about either of Redbeard or The Other One; we’ve only made assumptions based on what we’ve seen in Sherlock’s Mind Palace - and it’s not like the stuff there is necessarily “real” - and from Mycroft, who mentions Redbeard but never says it’s a dog.</p>
            </blockquote>





	Redbeard is "The Other One"

Here’s my theory: Redbeard and “The Other One” are the same person (a person).

Mofftisson love misdirecting us. We actually know pretty much nothing about either of Redbeard or The Other One; we’ve only made assumptions based on what we’ve seen in Sherlock’s Mind Palace - and it’s not like the stuff there is necessarily “real” - and from Mycroft, who mentions Redbeard but never says it’s a dog.

_Okay, here’s what we know:_

1) Sherlock initially wanted to be a pirate (hence the name Redbeard).

2) Something bad happened to The Other One. (I’m calling him [Sherrinford because that’s what I bet he’s going to be called](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_Sherlock_Holmes_characters#Sherrinford_Holmes).)

3) Mummy gave it all up for children - [but why](http://wellthengameover.tumblr.com/post/102651552961/mummy-holmes)? (My parents are both university professors, and I can tell you it’s a job with a very flexible schedule. There’s nothing wrong with quitting your job for your children if you want, but doing so as a university professor is slightly odd because a) it’s very flexible; and b) I assume math was something she was passionate about.)

4) Mycroft and Sherlock thought Sherlock was stupid until they met other children. But we know there’s another brother, so they had to have met other children … odd that they didn’t mention him at all in that conversation.

5) Redbeard was put down when Sherlock was a child.

6) Sherlock and Mycroft don’t get on.

7) Someone upset Mummy.

8) Sherlock and Mycroft think getting involved is a bad idea because of Redbeard.

9) CAM mentioned Redbeard and Sherlock looked worried - which could mean almost anything, but TBH it seems unlikely that CAM has a file on Sherlock’s childhood dog. Why would CAM think a pet that’s been dead for more than twenty years might be a pressure point?

10) Some government officials have some knowledge of Mycroft’s involvement and seeming lack of care in what happened to Sherrinford.

11) Mycroft feels really guilty about something relating to Sherlock.

Okay, here’s the thing I’ve always thought: If all of Sherlock’s problems come from the fact that his childhood dog died? Well … newsflash: **everyone’s childhood dog dies and we don’t all spend the next 25 years claiming to be high-functioning sociopaths**. So if this is the whole thing? Eh. Yes, Sherlock is more emotional than he lets on, but being traumatized 25 years later by your childhood dog dying is a whole different level, and not a good level.

It’s not like Sherlock’s parents locked him in the basement until he was 18 and never spoke to him and his only option for a friend was his dog. We’ve met his parents, who are [mostly](http://wellthengameover.tumblr.com/post/102651552961/mummy-holmes) decent, and Mycroft specifically said their parents encouraged them to make friends (though with limited success). So Sherlock **did _not_ have an utterly abandoned childhood where the only good thing was his pet dog** , who then died. So Sherlock being terrified of forming relationships of any kind for _25 years_ because his _dog died_ seems pretty weak and pretty unbelievable.

Plus, Mofftisson have implied - but not told us - that that’s what’s going on, and they use so much symbolism in this show. Everything has a hidden meaning.

Using an animal to represent a person is a very normal thing that stories do:

 

> It actually reminds me of Woody Harrelson’s character in Zombieland. He talks about **his dog Buck and losing him and how much he misses him** (and this is interspersed with flashbacks of him and Buck), and **you later find out that Buck was actually his toddler-aged son**.
> 
> Also in **MASH there was a scene where a woman was shown smothering an animal** (I think it was a chicken or something) in order to keep it quiet to hide from the other soldiers. Then you find out later **she actually smothered her baby** to death.
> 
> In a show like Sherlock, which employs so much symbolism and metaphor, it’s incredibly simple to believe that Redbeard is represented by a sweet and loyal dog, but is actually a person. I don’t necessarily believe he was older than Sherlock, he could’ve been younger or older in my mind, but it makes sense that if something happened to his brother when he was a kid, and Sherlock is somehow responsible for the accident, that he’d adopt the “love is a chemical defect found on the losing side” attitude. (via beejohnlocked)

We’ve had this whole thing **foreshadowed on this show already. In THoB** , Sherlock is incredibly supportive of Henry Knight. Even after the case is solved, Sherlock wants to make sure Henry knows he doesn’t have to be afraid anymore:

 

> SHERLOCK: Look at it, Henry.

 

> HENRY  _(digging his heels in)_ : No, no, no!  
>  SHERLOCK  _(shoving him forward determinedly)_ : Come on,  _look_  at it! ([x](http://arianedevere.livejournal.com/28834.html))

  


The case is already solved and the criminal is right there, but Sherlock’s first concern is making sure Henry Knight knows it was only ever a dog, and now it’s dead: he doesn’t have to be afraid anymore.

Long before I thought of this Redbeard is The Other One theory, I’d seen Henry as a mirror for Sherlock: _  
_

##  _Henry Knight was so traumatized by his father’s death that he turned it into a dog_.

And what does Sherlock say about that?

 

> SHERLOCK: You couldn’t cope. You were just a child, so you rationalised it into something very different.

Sherlock would know. He’s exactly the same.

To go with that the dog and the brother are two totally separate events you have to believe:

  1. Mofftisson are sloppy and decided to unnecessarily include - in the same season - two different mysterious angst-causing figures from Sherlock’s past. In real life, he’d probably have lots. In a story, only one. Two is messy and redundant.
  2. Despite the fact that something really bad happened to Sherlock’s sibling (according to Mycroft in HLV), the worst thing in Sherlock’s life is still his dog dying.
  3. Why is Mycroft screwed up? _“Caring is not an advantage.”_ Sherlock’s dead dog screwed up Mycroft too? Or Mycroft is screwed up about the sibling - the dead brother screwed up “Ice Man” Mycroft but Sherlock was fine? Something so bad happened at some point to make Mycroft think “Caring is not an advantage” but a _different_ thing screwed up Sherlock to make him think a very similar thing?



These three facts all have to be true if the dog and the brother are completely separate, which just seems so unlikely as to be unreasonable.

We know that something really, really bad happened to The Other One:

 

> SIR EDWIN: If this is some expression of familial sentiment …  
>  MYCROFT: Don’t be absurd. I am not given to outbursts of brotherly compassion. **You know what happened to the _other_ one.** ([x](http://arianedevere.livejournal.com/28834.html))

It was likely death, since The Other One haven’t been mentioned in the five years we’ve known Sherlock and weren’t at or mentioned at the first Holmes Family Christmas in years. So Sherlock’s sibling died, and yet the most devastating experience of Sherlock’s life is still his dog dying? Not his brother dying? That doesn’t seem very reasonable.

It’s not like we ever see a dog. We see a Mind Palace projection of a dog, just like we see all sorts of _symbolic_ Mind Palace projections. For example, we see Sherlock look for John to “calm him down” after he’s been shot, and instead he finds Mary in a wedding dress and she shoots him. This represents how Sherlock feels that Mary marrying John has made John unavailable to him even as a source of comfort in his own mind, and that the pain of being shot was equal to the pain of watching John marry someone else. It’s not like Sherlock has ever actually been shot by Mary while she was in a wedding dress. Mary shooting Sherlock in a wedding dress is _not a memory._ It’s symbolic. Why should Redbeard be any different?

We never take anything on this show at surface value - as we shouldn’t. So why are we taking Redbeard at surface value?

_Anyway, down to the details:_

## Sherrinford’s death must be what makes Sherlock and Mycroft so convinced that “Caring is not an advantage” and “Sentiment is a chemical defect found on the losing side.” That means that someone in this event must have made a poor decision based on sentiment and because of it, Sherrinford died.

 

> SHERLOCK: Will caring about them help save them?  
>  JOHN: Nope.  
>  SHERLOCK: Then I’ll continue not to make that mistake. ([x](http://arianedevere.livejournal.com/28834.html))

That comes from Sherrinford.

[Based on Mycroft’s relationship with Mummy, I think it’s a pretty solid guess that the person making the poor decision based on sentiment was Mummy](http://wellthengameover.tumblr.com/post/102651552961/mummy-holmes).

## Sherrinford’s death also must be what made Sherlock think his only value is his cleverness - his “utility.” That means he perceives that what happened is that he wasn’t clever enough and because of it, Sherrinford died.

Sherrinford’s death has answer a couple of other questions about Sherlock and Mycroft’s relationship:

  1. Why does Sherlock thinks Mycroft is always right, even when he’s angry at him?
  2. Why is Sherlock _so sure_ Mycroft doesn’t care about him? Literally, Sherlock just _will not hear_ that Mycroft feels any sort of affection for him.



_So here’s one possible version of what maybe happened:_

Sherlock’s ten, Mycroft’s seventeen, Sherrinford’s twenty-five, and Sherrinford works for MI6.

I think the second line doesn’t refer to Mycroft but to another brother. Remember that Mycroft says that he and Sherlock both thought Sherlock was stupid _until they met other children._ So Sherrinford had to be either significantly older or significantly younger, otherwise they would’ve had another child, Sherrinford, to compare Sherlock to.

I think the big dog represents the older, protective brother - older enough that Sherlock (and probably Mycroft) didn’t have a lot of contact with him growing up: Sherrinford was more like a cousin or a cool uncle. He’s willing to play pirates with Sherlock when Mycroft is “too mature” to - and that’s how he gets the nickname “Redbeard.” Possibly “Redbeard” was even his code name on this MI6 mission.

1989\. [Mummy has written a breakthrough book _The Dynamics of Combustion._ She’s also working on some more unpublished research along the same lines. Bad guys want this information.](http://wellthengameover.tumblr.com/post/108366970397/i-can-understand-that-the-empty-house-style) Mummy doesn’t know that, but Sherrinford’s home for Christmas to keep the bad guys from getting the information and to get it to the British government to keep it safe.

The bad guys want to get the information from Mummy’s work, so they lay a gingerbread trail of clues for Sherlock. Sherrinford indulges Sherlock by going on this little case with him. Sherlock and Sherrinford spend all morning following clues and come home for lunch and Sherlock is all excited and tells Mummy and Mycroft about the last clue. Mycroft says “Don’t be stupid, Sherlock, the red lipstick doesn’t mean X; it means Y.” Sherlock says “No! It means X!” Sherlock and Sherrinford go back after lunch to the last clue … and it really does mean Y, and that’s how they get captured by the bad guys. Sherlock thinks “I’m so stupid; Mycroft was right.” Mycroft thinks “I’m so stupid; if only I’d paid any attention to Sherlock instead of ignoring him. I would’ve realized that the whole thing was a trap.”

Mummy rushes in to save Sherlock and Sherrinford, even though Mycroft tells her to wait, to let Sherrinford handle it, to wait for MI6 back-up, that she’ll be more of a hindrance than a help, but she gets too emotional and goes anyway, and she ends up putting everyone in more danger. When Mycroft follows her, Sherrinford ends up having to hold off the bad guys in a firefight while Mycroft tries to get Mummy and Sherlock out, and Sherrinford dies. Mummy blames Mycroft and sees his rationality as a lack of concern - “You didn’t care about them at all; how could you do that?” - and Sherlock overhears:

 

> MYCROFT: … This petty feud between us is simply childish. People will suffer … and you know how it always upset Mummy.  
>  SHERLOCK: _I_ upset her? Me? It wasn’t _me_ that upset her, Mycroft.

After Sherrinford dies, Mycroft tells the police what happened, and he says “The wrong brother died” – talking about himself. But Sherlock overhears, and thinks Mycroft is talking about him. Sherlock thinks it’s his fault, so of course he thinks Mycroft would, too. So _no matter what_ Mycroft says for the rest of his life, Sherlock thinks “But he wishes I had died. I’ve got no use to him except the Work.” Remember that Sherlock says Mycroft told him a story about The East Wind:

 

> SHERLOCK: It’s a story **my brother told me when we were kids**. The East Wind – this terrifying force that lays waste to all in its path. It seeks out the **unworthy** and **plucks them from the Earth**. **That was generally me.**

So apparently when they were kids, Mycroft told Sherlock a story and what Sherlock took from it was that Mycroft thinks Sherlock is unworthy and should die. I’m guessing that that wasn’t actually what Mycroft meant.

Sherlock thinks it’s his fault for getting them all into this in the first place. Mycroft thinks it’s his fault for not coming up with a plan that would’ve saved Sherrinford. Sherlock thinks it’s Mycroft’s fault because Mummy says Mycroft didn’t care enough. That’s probably where the “putting down” of Redbeard comes in, that Sherlock thinks Mycroft considered Sherrinford a “incidental casualty” sort of thing. Mycroft thinks it’s Mummy’s fault being overemotional and leaving him to be the adult: _I’ll be mother._

Mycroft learns that being too involved is a weakness, that if you want to actually protect people, you have to keep your cool. He spends the next 25 years trying to remind himself and Sherlock.

Sherlock learns that Mycroft would rather have him dead, and that if he ever wants to be worth anything or help anyone, he can’t be so stupid.

_[And that information that the bad guys wanted? It ends up safe… mostly. I think we’ll be seeing it again>>](http://wellthengameover.tumblr.com/post/108366970397/i-can-understand-that-the-empty-house-style) _

NOTE 1: I actually thought at first The Other One would be a sister. But I think it’s a brother is because this is what Sherlock says in his Mind Palace in HLV:

 

> YOUNG SHERLOCK: _Good_ boy! Clever boy!

NOTE 2:It’s certainly **possible that there actually was a real dog involved, too** \- similar to how Henry Knight associates his father’s death with a dog because he saw the word HOUND. So perhaps Sherrinford had a dog named Redbeard, in which case the ACD case involved is probably either “Silver Blaze” or “Shoscombe Old Place,” as they’re the two ACD cases with dogs. “Silver Blaze” is the one with the famous line that the case hinges on: _  
_

 

> _“Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”_  
>  “To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”  
>  “The dog did nothing in the night-time.”  
>  “That was the curious incident,” remarked Sherlock Holmes.

The dog doesn’t bark, meaning that the dog knew whoever the thief was (AKA it was someone the family knew). That could definitely be applicable to some situation with Mummy’s documents and Sherrinford.

NOTE 3: I always think I’ve made this clear but people still message me: I’m not suggesting that Sherlock literallythinks his brother is a dog or can’t remember if it’s his dog or his brother who died. It’s symbolic.

NOTE 4: Additional facts that may be telling:

**1) “A very stupid little boy.”**

 

> MYCROFT: Oh, for God’s sake, Sherlock. It doesn’t matter about the gun. Don’t be stupid.

 

> MYCROFT: You always were sostupid.

 

> MYCROFT: Such a disappointment.  
>  YOUNG SHERLOCK _(angrily)_ : I’m not stupid.  
>  MYCROFT: You’re a _very_ stupid little boy. Mummy and Daddy are very cross. ([x](http://arianedevere.livejournal.com/28834.html))

It wouldn’t surprise me if this is very close to a real conversation Sherlock had with Mycroft right before Sherrinford died when they were both really upset:

 

> _For God’s sake, Sherlock, how could you be tricked like that? Don’t be stupid! You always were so stupid!_
> 
> _I’m not stupid!_
> 
> _Of course you are! You’re just a stupid little boy; Mummy and Daddy are going to be so cross!_

**2) “You sat there and watched me being beaten to a pulp.”**

 

> SHERLOCK: “Wading in”? **You sat there and watched me being beaten to a pulp.**  
>  MYCROFT _(frowning indignantly)_ : I got you out.  
>  SHERLOCK: No – _I_ got me out. Why didn’t you intervene sooner?  
>  MYCROFT: Well, I couldn’t risk giving myself away, could I? It would have ruined everything.  
>  SHERLOCK: **You were enjoying it.**

 

> MYCROFT: Nonsense.  
>  SHERLOCK: _Definitely_ enjoying it. ([x](http://arianedevere.livejournal.com/28834.html))

I think that Sherlock really does believe on some level that Mycroft did enjoy seeing him hurt; he’s really pissed off. Is this a hint to a real thing that happened when they were kids? Sherlock was kidnapped and Mycroft “sat there and watched him being beaten to a pulp,” possibly because Mycroft had a plan and he couldn’t think of any other way:

 

> SHERLOCK: … Why didn’t you intervene sooner?  
>  MYCROFT: Well, I couldn’t risk giving myself away, could I? It would have ruined everything. ([x](http://arianedevere.livejournal.com/28834.html))

Or possibly Mycroft didn’t intervene because he was seventeen and terrified:

 

> MYCROFT: In case you’d forgotten, fieldwork is not my natural milieu. ([x](http://arianedevere.livejournal.com/28834.html))

Mycroft has said that he doesn’t do fieldwork, and we’ve always assumed that’s because he’s lazy or because he likes to do things behind the scenes, but what if Mycroft had to do “fieldwork” at seventeen to save Sherlock, and he panicked and couldn’t do it?

**3) Young Sherlock in front of a firing line.**

Mycroft sees Sherlock in the firing line at the end of HLV as Young Sherlock because he sees Sherlock as his baby brother. What if it’s _also_ because Mycroft saw that same thing - a bunch of people ready to shoot Sherlock - happening to Young Sherlock?

 **4)** Before Sherrinford died, perhaps **Sherlock was called “Billy,”** and this is why he changed his name. Probably “Captain Billy,” or something equally pirate-y.

 **5) The USSR apparently had a bunch of spies and double agents in British Intelligence in the 1980s.** Was Sherrinford one of them? And perhaps Mycroft never had proof and thus didn’t want to tell Sherlock? Perhaps to parallel Mycroft with Jim, he was being blackmailed in some way?

 **6) Sherrinford’s death will probably parallel Mycroft’s** ; I believe that [Mycroft is going to die to save Sherlock, probably in 5x1](http://wellthengameover.tumblr.com/post/108772888767/5x1-mycroft-dies-lord-moran-returns-his-last).

**7) Sir Edwin knows what happened.**

  1. They had to recast Sir Edwin for the Spesh. You wouldn’t do this. His role in HLV was just Irritating Government Official #12, so if the actor was busy, you would just write a different character who was Irritating Government Official #13.
  2. Assuming the Vic!Spesh is in Sherlock’s Mind Palace, we don’t even know that Sherlock’s ever even met Sir Edwin, so him being here just doesn’t make sense. Even if Sherlock has met Sir Edwin, he can’t have met him that much, right, so why include him in his Mind Palace?



So because of these points, I think Sir Edwin is a more important character than he appeared in HLV and I think Sherlock has met him in a fairly significant way. And what’s the only defining or unusual characteristic we know of thus far about Sir Edwin?

 

> SIR EDWIN: If this is some expression of familial sentiment …  
>  MYCROFT: Don’t be absurd. I am not given to outbursts of brotherly compassion. **You know what happened to the _other_ one. ** ([x](http://arianedevere.livejournal.com/28834.html)) **  
> **

_He knows what happened to The Other One._

Given the meeting in HLV, I think it looks like Sir Edwin is officially high up in MI6. (Someone at that meeting must be since they’re talking about an MI6 mission and it’s not Lady Smallwood or Mycroft.) So I think Sir Edwin was directing Sherrinford’s MI6 mission on which he died, and that’s how Sherlock knows him, because Sherlock was there. However, I don’t even think Victor Trevor necessarily has to be a person: Mofftisson re-purpose names from ACD all the time.

 **8) “Victor Trevor”may be involved.** Victor Trevor was ACD Holmes’s first friend, his only friend at university. However, since Sebastian Wilkes didn’t mention him, my guess is that - if he exists in BBC, which I actually doubt - he’s not from university but earlier. [welovethebeekeeper has speculated that Victor Trevor is a villain](http://captain-liddy.tumblr.com/post/131077942985/welovethebeekeeper-tykobrian); if that’s true, he could be here: for example, one of the kidnappers who Sherlock thought was nice. However, if “Victor Trevor” exists, I don’t even think he necessarily has to be a person: Mofftisson repurpose ACD names all the time. For example, Sherrinford could die on Victor Trevor Bridge.

Things that Sherrinford’s death probably caused:

_Sherlock:_

  * Thinks his only value is the work
  * Afraid to care about people
  * Feels guilty
  * Unwilling to believe Mycroft cares about him
  * Unwilling to believe anyone could care about him



_Mycroft:_

  * “Caring is not an advantage”
  * Protective of Sherlock
  * [Doesn’t respect Mummy](http://wellthengameover.tumblr.com/post/102651552961/mummy-holmes)
  * Feels guilty
  * Doesn’t hold himself personally responsible for Sherrinford’s death, but does consider Sherlock’s trauma to be his fault



Lastly, before you comment: My premise is not and has never been that Sherlock or anyone else would not or could not be this upset about a dog. My premise is that - in a written story - it’s highly unlikely that Mofftisson would’ve written, _in the same season no less_ , two completely separate angst-causing figures in Sherlock’s past, with exactly the same narrative function: to make Sherlock scared of emotions and relationships. This is not a theory about how people feel about their pets; it’s a theory about narrative.

**Author's Note:**

> Transcribed from [my meta blog on tumblr](http://wellthengameover.tumblr.com/my-sherlock-meta). Much more there.


End file.
